powercolor radeon 9550(128bit) vs. jetway radeon 9600LE(128bit)

[rocklimit]

oh really? is cheaper. Doesn't look liek it in newegg.com.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: rocklimit
oh really? is cheaper. Doesn't look liek it in newegg.com.

there are other places besides newegg.com, there's this wonderful thing called the WORLD-WIDE-WEB. It encompasses quite a bit

 

[MercenaryForHire]

rocklimit, please go back to whatever country you snuck in from and learn some English. You're not fitting in here.

- M4H

 

[bim27142]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: rocklimit

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: rocklimit
my god..people don't get it. This happens in ALL damn forums. Someone asks for a certain card and there is ALWAYS someone that says "No buy this card better" what the? you know? what if teh guy is on a damn budget and just wants a damn card to play? jesus christ. I have never seen such ignorant people. and to the orginal poster Id say go with the Jetway 9600LE(128 bit version) I have the 64bit ersion and is workign very good.

See, that would be a valid point ... if the 4Ti series didn't cost about two-thirds the price of the suggested cards, will take them out behind the woodshed for a beating in DX8, and the 9550/9600LE suck so bad at DX9 that it's not worth enabling them.

Ignorwhat, no0b?

- M4H

first of all, don't use the word n00b. Makes you looks so stupid you can't even imagine. Anyways Like I said what if the guy has only 70$ bucks to spend? what if the guy has been gaming on a Riva TNT 2 for 4 friggin years(like myself) and just wants to upgrade but NOO, there has to be those people that don't give a single piece of sh*t and always say "OMGZ, SAVE UP OR DUN BUY DAT CARD , BUY A BETTA ONE" , You could at least have teh dignity to ask if teh guy was on a budget, if he needed the card like Right now, and whats the purpose of the card. After that You can recommend opnions.jesus...

While we're talking about people looking stupid, I bolded "teh" parts where you suck at "teh" English language. Please try to be sober the next time you post.

You also seem to be "teh" lacking at "teh" reading comprehension. The gF4 TI series is:

[ ] Cheaper
[ ] Faster in DX8
[ ] About as equipped to handle DX9 as the two neutered cards listed in the first post
[ ] Available in swarms from eBay, FS/T, or local secondhand purchase
[X] All of the above

That makes it in his budget, readily obtainable, and the best bang for the buck.

Now touch your toes and try to fart - you might manage to dislodge your head from your ass ... no0b.

- M4H

hey c'mon you guys, this is turning into a war zone around here!! peace men?! this is just about a damn cheap video card ya'll... and yeah, i'm on a deep tight budget, so basically its all about the budget and not for the fastest video card in the market...

 

[bim27142]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
There is no such thing as a 128bit 9600le. In the case of the 9600, "le" specificly reffers to a 64bit bus.

128mb != 128bit

i think there is, please note: jetway radeon 9600LE... 9600LE is not the chip but the brand's part number(and the brand is jetway)...there are two versions for this, the 64bit and a 128bit, can be seen in the model number of each respective card... i.e. 95LXAD128B is 64bit with the "B" on the last part and 95LXAD128C is 128bit, note the "C" on the last part...

 

[LTC8K6]

My vote remains for the 128bit 9600LE, even over the ti4200. I still think it's the better card. I haven't seen anything posted here that would change my mind.

 

[Pete]

1. That Jetway 9600"LE" is 128-bit, according to NewEgg. And it's $70 shipped.
2. Odds are a 9600 will have a cleaner signal and nicer DVD playback than a 4200.
3. The 9600 might be slightly slower than a 4200 overall (though I think the two are pretty close), but it will be faster with AF. I'm not sure you'll want to use AA with either card, but it'll have nicer AA, too.

But if budget is the name of the game, I'd just try to find a <=$50 used GF4Ti 4200/4400/4800SE/4600/4800.

And if you want performance numbers, just read Anandtech's Video section. They have reviews there, you know.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: bim27142

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
There is no such thing as a 128bit 9600le. In the case of the 9600, "le" specificly reffers to a 64bit bus.

128mb != 128bit

i think there is, please note: jetway radeon 9600LE... 9600LE is not the chip but the brand's part number(and the brand is jetway)...there are two versions for this, the 64bit and a 128bit, can be seen in the model number of each respective card... i.e. 95LXAD128B is 64bit with the "B" on the last part and 95LXAD128C is 128bit, note the "C" on the last part...

you are right that 95LXAD128B is 64bit with the "B" on the last part and 95LXAD128C is 128bit; but neither are 9600le cards, they are 9550s, hence the whole "95" but at the begining of their part numbers.

On the other hand there is the 96LE-AD-128C which Pete eluded to. However, looking at the specs, it is really not an le but rather a standard 9600. I have no clue why Jetway would devalue it by calling it a "le" which Ati specificly uses to reffer to a 64bit bus 9600s, given that and a 9600 non-le on newegg with a 64bit bus an can only assume that it must be some conspiracy to prove me wrong.

 

[Project86]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
I got myself a Sapphire Radeon 9600 Atlantis (325 MHz core, 400 MHz mem). It's not as fast as the Atlantis Pro (400 MHz core, 600 MHz mem) but it plays Doom 3 at 800x600 medium detail.

1024x768x32 no AA/AF
3DMark01SE: 9,000
3DMark03: 2450

Not earthshattering, but good for the casual FPS gamer.

My GF4 Ti4200 64mb at stock speeds gets 9500+ in 3dmark2k1 and 2500+ on 2k3 in my setup-XP2500+, 512mb PC3500, MSI KT6V mobo, slow totally fragmented Maxtor HD... I'm currently selling this card for $40 (this is not a sales pitch, already have a buyer)

I thought 9600 would be faster, but if these are the usual speeds, you might do well to just get a GF4 in the >$60 range and be done with it.

 

[cogitech]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: rocklimit
ha-ha-ha. You make me sad and make me laugh at the same time man , you really haev no idea how stupid you are making yourself look.You really have no idea..

I should say the same to you. Do you know how to read?
A geforce 4 Ti 4200 is CHEAPER than a radeon 9550 or 9600LE, and it's FASTER.
Understand?

Hey there all,

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about how the GeForce Ti 4200 is faster than a Radeon 9550.

I assumed that everyone was correct, so I went out and bought a Brand New shiny LeadTek WinFast A250TD (GeForce 4 Ti 4400-128MB) for $115CDN. I am in the position of being able to do a direct comparison, since I am building a system for someone right now and I have installed a Radeon 9550-256MB ($110CDN) in it. I have done some gaming benchmarks with the two cards and have come up with some interesting results. First, I'll list the specs of the two systems.

System #1
Geforce 4 Ti 4400-128MB (LeadTek WinFast A250TD)
Asus A7V-333
AMD Athlon XP Mobile (Barton) 2500+ OC'd to 2.57Ghz (3600+ approx)
AeroCool HT-101 heat-pipe cooler
512MB DDR-333
80GB Maxtor 7200
Windows XP Pro (SP1)

System#2
Radeon 9550-256MB (Connect3D)
Asus A7N8X-e Deluxe
AMD Sempron 2800+ (Athlon XP Thoroughbred 2400+, of course) at stock speed (2.0Ghz)
Stock AMD heatsink
512MB DDR-400
Twin 80GB Serial ATA Seagate 7200s
Windows XP Pro (SP2)

Granted System 1 obviously has WAY more raw processing power than System 2, but it's interesting to see the benchmarks, nonetheless. I don't have the time (and my wife doesn't have the patience) to do the card swap thing and test all this on the same rig.


The Benchmarks

Doom3 timedemo 1 - 800x600 - Medium Quality - All advanced options on - No AA - Sync Off

System 1 @ 275/550 (stock speed) = 28.8 FPS
System 1 @ 300/600 (OC'd speed) = 31.1 FPS
System 2 @ 250/200 (stock speed) = 24.6 FPS
System 2 @ 290/217 (OC'd speed) = 27.8 FPS

Doom3 timdemo 1 - 800x600 - High Quality - All advanced options on - 4x AA - Sync Off

System 1 @ 275/550 (stock speed) = 13.0 FPS
System 1 @ 300/600 (OC'd speed) = 15.0 FPS
System 2 @ 250/200 (stock speed) = 11.3 FPS
System 2 @ 290/217 (OC'd speed) = 12.8 FPS

Note: The overall visual quality in Doom3 was better on the Radeon 9550, as I saw some slight color banding on the Ti4400. I should also note that I had the "performance/quality" sliders for both cards on the highest performance setting.


Quake III 1024x768x32 - All settings as high as they go - Vertex lighting - 32bit everything

NO AA

System 1 @ 275/550 = 243 FPS
System 1 @ 300/600 = 247 FPS
System 2 @ 250/200 = 197 FPS
System 2 @ 290/217 = 209 FPS

4X AA

System 1 @ 275/550 = 109 FPS
System 1 @ 300/600 = 121 FPS
System 2 @ 250/200 = 97 FPS
System 2 @ 290/217 = 108 FPS

Note: at these speeds, who really cares


ChameleonMark 1024x768x32

Ti4400 @ 300/600 (OC'd)

Glass 85 FPS
Real 114 FPS
Shiny 85 FPS

Radeon 9550 @ 250/200 (Stock)

Glass 119 FPS
Real 115 FPS
Shiny 118 FPS

Note: This was built by nVidia to supposedly show off the GeForce 4 Ti shaders. (I'm pretty sure this is pure DX8). Looks like the Radeon does alright to me, as it easily beats the OC'd 4400 even with the 9550 at stock speed.

I could do more benchmarks, but I think we'd just see the same thing. One card would outpace the other on some benchmarks and the reverse would be true on other benchmarks. Overall, the Ti4400 system had a big advantage here with almost 600mhz more raw CPU power (and double L2 cache) pushing it.

I'm not so sure it's fair to say that the Ti4400 is a "way better bang for the buck". It seems to me that the Radeon 9550 is certainly fast enough for the older DX8 stuff and comes pretty close to keeping pace with the Ti4400 in Doom3.

With that said, I'm still keeping the Ti4400 in my system. I just like nVidia better. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend the 9550. It's a fine budget card IMHO.

One other note: The Ti4400 has some serious cooling going on, with a HUGE heatsink/RAMsink and dual fans. The Radeon, on the other hand, has a normal-sized heatsink and no fan (yep it's nice and quiet!).

Hope this puts things in perspective a bit.

Cheers,

P

P.S. I just saw the recent HL2 benchmarks and it surely looks like the GeForce4 card does VERY well. I am surprised actually, at how much better it is than the 9550. The 9550 does DX9 mode, but not very well, just like you guys have been saying. Interesting that I didn't see the same in Doom3.

 

[sdack]

Have a look at the futuremark web site. They have a huge database full of scores from all types of PCs. If it is between them two cards, I would suggest the 9550 since I got it myself. Together with a Duron at 1.7GHz I get about 10500 points from 3DMark2001. It is great for overclocking. People believe it to be a downclocked 9600, which would explain why I could get it from 250/200 to 425/290 MHz (core/mem). Make sure it has a 128bit bus. Most 9550s offered are SEs (64bit).

Do not go for the eBay argument. eBay is good for arguing about where to buy cheapest. However, people usually do not talk about where they lost their money. eBay is known for that too. Also do not believe that cards which support DX9 are useless unless they provide a high polygon performance and fill rate. Games are starting to let you select the shader model independently from the detail level and resolution, allowing you to play these games with mid range and low end cards. People often also only see ego-shooters as the only useful game to play. However, there are other games like adventures, RPGs or strategy games which use 3D. Some of them only render parts in it but still utilise all features of DirectX. The more popular DX9 will become, the more games will ask for DX9. An old GeForce will then only be fast while looking dull.

Sven